Headlines

Henry Blodget

Hey, let’s ban bullets

So if we decided to establish that we are not individually allowed to bear semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols while still being allowed to own single-shot hunting guns, this would be perfectly in keeping with how we have interpreted our Second Amendment rights under the Constitution.

But it will still make lots of people scream that we have tromped all over the Constitution, even if we haven’t.

So, how about if we limit access to something that factors into every gun massacre that the Constitution doesn’t address at all:

Ammunition.

What if we keep semi-automatic weapons freely available but strictly control the manufacture, distribution, and sales of bullets?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Liberals really have no idea that people in this country have been buying more than just guns over these years, do they? Many people I know have been collecting shells in all kinds of calibers, buying reloaders, gun powder, etc. Most guys I know make their own ammo as a hobby. But if the Federal Government wants to open a highly lucrative black market then, hey, that hobby may just turn into a retirement plan. Gun ranges would be sitting on gold mines with all those spent rounds, which are now just laying all over the ground.

How could the Maximal Leader address the Masses? How could we pronouce sentaence on the Capitalist Roader Filth who Despoil Gaia and Oppress Womyn, Gays, Lesbians, the Transgendered, the Bi-Sexual, the Poor and People of Colour?

Comrade, please engage your brain before addressing the Commune, otherwise we may have to rescind your posting privileges!

In Heller, the Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and said, quite clearly, the laws that make weapons de facto impossible to use for self-defence are also banned:

“We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

You cannot do through taxation or regulation that which is unconstitutional through legislation.

In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.[5] He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement.[6]

Definition of ARMAMENT
1
: a military or naval force
2
a : the aggregate of a nation’s military strength
b : weapons, arms
3
: the process of preparing for war
See armament defined for English-language learners »
See armament defined for kids »
Examples of ARMAMENT

The country’s armament will take years.
a small nation that is determined to have adequate armaments

Origin of ARMAMENT
French armement, from Latin armamenta (plural) utensils, military or naval equipment, from armare
First Known Use: 1699

It should come as no surprise that when gun ownership increases, the incidence of crime decreases. People are buying guns and ammunition for a reason. That’s true in Connecticut as well where the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre took place. They aren’t fools. Most of them follow the news, and almost every day they see the president on television engaging in open class warfare. They see his stooges on television, too, people like Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, and Andy Stern, former president of SEIU. They have done everything except declare war on job providers because they want to collect dues from every worker in America. Make no mistake about it: they are in it for the money.

The president and his flunkies should realize that there are consequences for incitement

In 2002, then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, published Merrill Lynch e-mails in which Blodget gave assessments about stocks which allegedly conflicted with what was publicly published. In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement.

And yet we have established that, despite the Second Amendment, we’re not individually allowed to bear them.

Yeah, see, this is the crux of the liberal misunderstanding. We have established no such thing.

The courts and legislators have established it, unlawfully and tyrannically. The fact that a critical mass of people have decided to live with this usurpation of our power because it makes for a more comfortable life does not make it legitimate and, more pointedly, does not lend it legal weight for logical extrapolation.

We the People do not say that the world would not be a better place without certain kinds of speech or guns. We say that we do not recognize the existence or legitimacy of a government that would presume to make these decisions.

Washington D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has confirmed that the department is looking into allegations that NBC’s David Gregory violated D.C.’s gun banning laws during a recent taping of Meet the Press.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, though I may not have been clear in my post.

I was pointing out that the 2nd Amendment obviously and implicitly includes access to ammunition (as well as tools, cleaning solution, oil and anything essential to the proper care and maintenance of a firearm).